AustLII [Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia >> 2023 >> [2023] AATA 2619

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Context] [No Context] [Help]

Chekwendo (Migration) [2023] AATA 2619 (27 July 2023)

Last Updated: 18 August 2023

Chekwendo (Migration) [2023] AATA 2619 (27 July 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS: Mr Noah Karume Chekwendo
Mrs Nancy Adhiambo Karume
Ms Cynthia Wanyona Karume
Miss Tasha Angel Khanali Karume
Master Clyde Chekwendo Karume

REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Cyrus Mistry (MARN: 0100178)

CASE NUMBER: 2002738

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2017/954548

MEMBER: Nicola Findson

DATE: 27 July 2023

PLACE OF DECISION: Perth

DECISION: The Tribunal remits the applications for Skilled Independent (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for Subclass 189 - Skilled - Independent visa:


Statement made on 27 July 2023 at 4:20pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Skilled Independent (Permanent) (Class SI) visa – Subclass 189 (Skilled – Independent) – bogus document – member of the family unit – divorce court order – polygamy under customary law in Kenya – experience as Registered Nurse – business providing disability services – compelling circumstances to waive the criterion – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5F, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 189.215, 189.311; Schedule 4, Public Interest Criterion 4020; rr 1.03, 1.05, 1.15

CASES
Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35
Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274
Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184
Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50
Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

  1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 11 February 2020 to refuse to grant the applicants Skilled Independent (Permanent) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
  2. The applicants applied for the visas on 10 March 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the first named applicant (the applicant) did not satisfy the requirements of cl 189.215 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because it was considered that there was evidence that the applicant had provided a bogus document in relation to the application for the visa under review. In addition, the delegate found that the secondary applicants did not meet the requirements of cl 189.311.
  3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 March 2023, to give evidence and present arguments on behalf of the applicants. The Tribunal also received oral evidence, by telephone, from the lawyers the applicant had engaged to execute a divorce relating to him, Mr Nathan Karugu and Ms Phoebe Muniha.
  4. The applicants were represented in relation to the review.
  5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

  1. The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020) as required by cl 189.215 for the grant of the visa. Broadly speaking, this requires that:

  1. The requirements in PIC 4020(1) and (2) can be waived if there are certain compelling or compassionate reasons justifying the granting of the visa: PIC 4020(4). However, this waiver does not apply to the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A) and (2B). PIC 4020 is extracted in the attachment to this decision.
  2. The applicant is a 49 year-old citizen of Kenya. He has applied for the visa to work in the nominated occupation of Registered Nurse.
  3. The applicants provided to the Tribunal a copy of the primary decision record, at the time they applied for review. The decision records that in the visa application, the second named applicant, Ms Nancy Karume, was listed as the applicant’s spouse (since Jan 2009) and as a migrating family member. The application also listed Ms Marygorret Sasaka as a spouse (since July 2016) and as a non-migrating dependent family member.
  4. Notwithstanding evidence provided in support of their spousal relationship, on 21 September 2017, it was determined by a delegate that the applicant and Ms Karume did not have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife to the exclusion of all others and therefore did not meet the definition of spouse as specified in Regulation 1.15A. It followed, the delegate found, that Ms Karume could not be considered to be a member of the applicant’s family unit as specified in cl 189.311.
  5. The delegate’s decision records that on 2 December 2017, the applicant sought to again include Ms Karume in the visa application, and provided additional information around his relationship with Ms Sasaka, including: a decree nisi, as well as a certificate of making decree nisi absolute issued by the Milimani Law Courts, Kenya, which documents indicated that the marriage of the applicant and Ms Sasaka was dissolved on 23 August 2017.
  6. The decision records that as a result of verification checks undertaken by departmental officers in June 2019, it was found that the divorce court order provided by the applicant in support of the application did not appear to be genuine.
  7. The delegate wrote to the applicants referring to the outcome of the verification checks, stating that this information raised serious concerns regarding the genuineness of the applicant’s divorce from Ms Sasaka. The delegate was of the belief that the applicant had given a ‘bogus document’ as defined in s 5(1).
  8. The decision records that in response to the natural justice letter, and in support of claims that the divorce decree was genuine, the applicant’s then representative provided a submission to the Department. In addition, the Department received a letter from Karugu Mbugua & Company Advocates dated 1 Oct 2019, which attached a copy of a letter dated 26 September 2019 sent from Karugu Mbugua & Company Advocates to the Family Division of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi as well as a copy of a letter purporting to be from the High Court of Kenya, Family Division, dated 30 September 2019.
  9. In October 2019, Departmental officers conducted further investigations around the genuineness of the divorce decree and the letter of 30 September 2019 provided in response to the natural justice letter. Based on the outcome of those checks, the delegate determined that a bogus document had been given within the meaning of s 5(1) of the Act, and he found that the applicant did not meet PIC 4020(1). The delegate’s decision also records that no information had been submitted to indicate the applicant was seeking a waiver of the requirements of PIC 4020.

  1. In a written submission to the Tribunal dated 12 October 2022, the applicant’s representative provided some context to this matter. The representative explained that on 7 April 2017, the Department requested evidence from the applicants to demonstrate that the applicant and Ms Karume were in a married relationship, to the exclusion of all others. The Department’s letter prompted the applicant to engage a lawyer in Kenya, while he remained in Australia, to facilitate his divorce from Ms Sasaka. It is submitted that in due course the divorce decree was submitted to the Department in good faith by the applicant, in the belief that it was genuine. It is submitted that when the Department invited comment from the applicant as to the genuineness of the divorce document, he engaged the services of a migration agent in Western Australia, who he then was unable to make contact with for several months. It is also submitted that the subsequent correspondence from Karugu Mbugua & Company Advocates was provided to the Department without the applicant’s knowledge.
  2. It is submitted that there was no intention, on the part of the applicant, to provide false information and deceive the Department. Therefore, it is submitted that the information provided to the Department did not have the quality of ‘purposeful falsity’. The submission sets out that following the visa refusal, and once the applicant was aware of the non-genuineness of the documentation, he took all steps necessary to rectify the situation by engaging a new legal representative, Ms Phoebe Munihu, to execute his divorce from Ms Sasaka. A bundle of documents accompanied the submission from the representative, including a statement of the applicant, a letter of apology from Karugu Mbugua & Company Advocates dated 23 February 2020, and a divorce decree issued by the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kakamega on 24 March 2021.
  3. At the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant the requirement in PIC 4020(1), and explained that the information obtained during verification checks of his divorce decree suggests that there is evidence a bogus document has been given in relation to the visa application. The Tribunal explained that PIC 4020 can still be engaged whether or not he was aware that the document was non-genuine.
  4. The applicant gave evidence at his hearing about the circumstances giving rise to provision of the divorce documentation to the Department; his relationship with Ms Karume; as well as his circumstances in Australia. The Tribunal found the applicant to be a credible witness.
  5. The applicant told the Tribunal that Ms Karume is his only wife. He claimed he met Ms Sasaka during a 4 week visit to Kenya in about 2016, and when Ms Sasaka fell pregnant (with the fifth-named applicant) after their short lived affair, he felt obliged to formalize their relationship under customary law in Kenya, which allows polygamy. He explained, however, that he has not had a spousal relationship with Ms Sasaka since that time. The applicant told the Tribunal that he had self-declared that he had a registered marriage to Ms Sasaka in his visa application.
  6. The applicant told the Tribunal that when the Department sought information from the applicant to demonstrate Ms Karame was a member of his family unit, he thought pursuing a divorce from Ms Sasaka would be helpful to, and expedite, the visa process, to enable his family – Ms Karame and their children - to be reunited in Australia.
  7. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was unsure of the process of arranging a divorce, so he conducted a google search of registered law firms in Kenya, and finally settled on using the services of Karugu Mbugua & Company Advocates. The applicant explained that he paid KSh100,000 to Karugu Mbugua & Company Advocates to assist him, and all instructions were provided by him over the telephone, to Mr Karugu himself. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was in regular contact with Mr Karugu, and he was led to believe the matter was in hand before he was finally sent the decree nisi. He said he was extremely shocked when the Department challenged the genuineness of this document and he came to realise his lawyers had not followed the correct procedure and “messed everything up”. The applicant also said he did not realise the consequential correspondence had been provided to the Department until he received the delegate’s decision detailing what had happened.
  8. The applicant told the Tribunal that after his visa was refused, in an attempt to obtain a true divorce document, he was introduced by a family member to another lawyer in Kenya, Ms Phoebe Munihu, who he engaged to inform him of the proper process for obtaining a divorce under customary law, and who acted for him until a true divorce document was produced.
  9. The applicant expressed his upset around the circumstances which led to him having his visa refused. He told the Tribunal that having to deal with this matter, and be away from his family, for such a prolonged period, has been torturous for him. He said he considers himself to be a good person, who is passionate about, and proud of, his work as a Registered Nurse. However, he misses his family tremendously and his mental health has suffered through this visa application process. He said he accepts that a non-genuine document was provided to the Department, but reiterated that there had never been any intention on his part to mislead the Department about his divorce from Ms Sasaka.
  10. The applicant described being extremely close to Ms Karume and his children. He told the Tribunal that he looks after his family financially, sending them money regularly for food, shelter, clothing, and their education (including transport and accommodation / boarding fees). He also indicated that he and Ms Karume provide each other with significant emotional support. He said it makes him extremely sad that the prolonged visa process has meant that they have had to endure a distant relationship with each other for several years, and that he has not been around to help raise their children, as he would like to. He told the Tribunal that Ms Karume is a primary school teacher, who has also just completed a degree in English literature; his eldest daughter (the third-named applicant) is currently studying accounting at a college in Nairobi; his youngest daughter (the fourth-named applicant) is at boarding school; and his son (the fifth-named applicant) attends a local primary school. He explained that the fifth-named applicant is in the custody of Ms Karume, but visits his mother (Ms Sasaka) when his school closes for holidays. The applicant told the Tribunal that he speaks to his wife and eldest daughter at least twice a day; his youngest daughter (via her head teacher) about twice a week; and he has a video-call with all his family members each weekend.
  11. The Tribunal asked the applicant for his evidence relevant to the waiver provisions. The applicant indicated he has been a nurse for 25 years, and has had a stellar career that he is proud of and would like to continue in Australia. He told the Tribunal that he had first arrived in Australia in 2013, as the holder of a student visa, and had completed his nursing conversion course between 2013 and 2015. He said he had worked as a nurse in Australia since that time. He told the Tribunal he has previously worked as a senior clinical nurse for St John of God Health Care Inc, and is currently working for NurseWest (a part of the Western Australian Department of Health) and the Joondalup Health Service. He indicated that Australians are benefitting from his service, and he enjoys mentoring and supporting junior nurses. He told the Tribunal that he had registered a business, with a colleague and friend, to provide disability services in the community to vulnerable and elderly Australians who qualify under the NDIS. He said he hoped to be able to remain in Australia to continue this important work. It is submitted that there is a shortage of nurses in Australia and that this occupation comes under the priority skills list for Subclass 189 visa processing.
  12. The Tribunal took evidence from Mr Nathan Karugu. He confirmed that the applicant was a client of his law firm, who had sought assistance in relation to a divorce. He told the Tribunal that Mr Roger Lewis was the lawyer who had been assigned the applicant’s matter, and that regrettably, he had prepared documents which were not genuine. Mr Karugu indicated he had provided an apology to the applicant for the events which led to the applicant’s visa rejection. He told the Tribunal that Mr Lewis no longer works for his firm and that he is currently facing disciplinary action unrelated to the applicant’s matter.
  13. The Tribunal also took evidence from Ms Phoebe Munihu. She told the Tribunal the applicant had given her instructions to file for divorce against Ms Sasaka, after he had fallen the victim of circumstances, after instructing another lawyer in Nairobi to do so. She told the Tribunal she was aware that the applicant had been given divorce papers that were not genuine. She said she had taken instructions; arranged documents (sent to the applicant via email to be signed), including a Chief’s letter of customary dissolution; and arranged to file and serve the defendant. She said that when the case came to the Court, Ms Sasaka did not oppose the divorce. She explained that in Kenyan law a party cannot agree to a divorce, so you are obliged there is an obligation of going through the process of having the case heard. She said Ms Sasaka attended the hearing in person and the applicant participated by video link. She confirmed that in March 2021, the applicant was issued a decree for divorce.
  14. The Tribunal notes that on 21 February 2020, the Department issued a certificate pursuant to s.376 of the Act, in relation to material contained in the Departmental file. At the hearing, the Tribunal discussed the existence and validity of the certificate with the applicant. The Tribunal indicated its preliminary view that the certificate is valid because it provides sufficient reasons for non-disclosure on ‘public interest’ grounds. The applicant did not make any comment on the certificate or its validity when invited to do so, and did not request the information to be released. The Tribunal has the discretion to disclose the information which is the subject of a certificate issued under s.376, or it may withhold the information having regard to any comments raised by the delegate in the certificate. The Tribunal decided that the s.376 certificate was valid, and having reviewed the material, determined not to release it to the applicant. In forming this view, the Tribunal considered that the gist of the relevant adverse information contained in the material had already been disclosed to the applicant in the Department’s invitation of 9 September 2019 and that it was unnecessary to release the information because it would not have assisted to provide the applicant with natural justice in this review.

Has the applicant given, or caused to be given a bogus document, or information that is false or misleading in material particular?

  1. The term ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ is defined in PIC 4020(5) and the term ‘bogus document’ is defined in s 5(1) of the Act (see the attachment to this decision). In contrast to the definition of ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ in PIC 4020(5), the reference in the definition of bogus document to a document that was obtained because of a ‘false or misleading’ statement has no requirement that it be relevant to a criterion for the grant of the visa: Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35; Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274.
  2. The requirement in PIC 4020(1) not to provide a bogus document, or false or misleading information, applies whether or not the Minister became aware of the bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular because of information given by the applicant: PIC 4020(3). It also applies whether or not the document or information was provided by the applicant knowingly or unwittingly.
  3. While PIC 4020 refers to information that is false, in the sense of purposely untrue, it is not necessary for the Minister (or the Tribunal on review) to conclude that the applicant was aware the information was purposely untrue in order for PIC 4020 to be engaged. However, an element of fraud or deception by some person is necessary to attract the operation of the provision: Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42.
  4. The Tribunal considers that the divorce decree purportedly issued by the Milimani Law Courts, Kenya, indicating that the marriage of the applicant and Ms Sasaka was dissolved on 23 August 2017, is a bogus document. Departmental verification checks revealed that this document was non-genuine.
  5. The applicant did not dispute the information put to him which indicated that the divorce document is a non-genuine document, but sought to provide an explanation as to how that document was obtained and why he believed it to be a genuine document.
  6. While the Tribunal acknowledges the explanation as to how the divorce decree was obtained, and accepts that the applicant believed it was a genuine document and unsuspectingly provided in support of the visa application, as noted above, PIC 4020 applies whether or not the document was provided knowingly or unwittingly.
  7. The verification checks, to which the Tribunal gives weight, indicate that the divorce decree provided to the Department in support of the application is a fraudulent document. In addition, subsequent evidence provided to the Tribunal indicates that the applicant’s divorce from Ms Sasaka was not properly executed until March 2021.The Tribunal is satisfied, on the basis of this evidence, that the divorce decree is a document that the Tribunal reasonably suspects is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so. The divorced decree is therefore a bogus document as defined in s 5(b) of the Act.
  8. It is not in dispute that the divorce decree was provided to the Department as part of the applicants’ visa application. The Tribunal accordingly finds that there is evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Department a bogus document in relation to the application for the skilled Subclass 189 visa. It follows that the applicant does not meet PIC 4020(1).

Has a visa previously been refused on the basis of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1)?

  1. PIC 4020(2) requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant and each member of the family unit have not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) in the period commencing 3 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused. This requirement does not apply to a person who was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2AA).
  2. The Tribunal is not aware that this is the case and therefore PIC 4020(2) does not apply.

Should the requirements of PIC 4020(1) or (2) be waived?

  1. The requirements of PIC 4020(1) and (2) may be waived where there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or where there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in r.1.03), that justify the granting of the visa. The decision-maker must first be satisfied that there are such circumstances, then must consider whether to exercise the discretion to waive the requirements, having regard to those circumstances: Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184.
  2. The expressions ‘compelling circumstances’ and ‘compassionate or compelling circumstances’ are not defined for these purposes. To be compelling, the circumstances must force or drive the decision-maker irresistibly to be satisfied: see Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50. The ordinary meaning of ‘compassionate’ relates to feelings of sympathy, sorrow, pity or concern for others.
  3. In considering whether the requirements should be waived, the Tribunal has had regard to the submissions and evidence provided relevant to the waiver as follows.
  4. The supporting documents detailing the applicant’s employment history indicate that he has over 25 years of experience working as a Registered Nurse. At the hearing the applicant gave evidence that he has been working as a registered nurse in Australia since 2015. He stated he is passionate about his profession. He stated that he works many long shifts, due to the high demand. He stated that he has served Australian citizens since 2015 and is keen to continue doing so in the future, if he is permitted to stay. He stated that he has strong future prospects in the health and medical fields, including the provision of nursing services both in hospitals as well as in the community.
  5. The applicant also gave evidence, which is accepted, that there is a significant shortage of qualified nurses in Australia. The applicant provided details of the various health campuses at which he has worked and the contributions he has made to Western Australian hospitals to date.
  6. The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence before it, and is satisfied that the applicant’s employment as a qualified and experienced registered nurse in Western Australia constitutes compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant fills an important role with the Western Australian Department of Health. The Tribunal does not consider this to be a case where his employer will merely be disadvantaged if it loses the employment of the applicant, but considers that the loss of his employment, in the circumstances of this case, has a broader public interest as it is likely to increase pressure on public hospitals, which require experienced registered nurses, for which there are projected to be significant skills shortages, to meet an increase in demand in the provision of health care to the community in Western Australia. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that there are compelling circumstances affecting the interest of Australia.
  7. Having found that there are compelling circumstances affecting the interest of Australia, the Tribunal is satisfied that those circumstances, in this case, justify the granting of the visa. Therefore, the requirements of PIC 4020(1) should be waived.

Has the applicant satisfied the identity requirements?

  1. PIC 4020(2A) requires an applicant satisfy the Tribunal as to his or her identity. The applicant’s identity documents have been provided with the application. No issue with his identity has been raised by the delegate. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets cl.4020(2A).

Has a visa previously been refused on the basis of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(2A)?

  1. PIC 4020(2B) requires that neither the applicant nor any family unit member have been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A) during the period starting 10 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused. This requirement does not apply to a person who was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2BA).
  2. There is no evidence that the applicant or any member of his family unit has been refused a visa because of failure to satisfy the identity requirement.
  3. Therefore PIC 4020(2B) is met.

Conclusion

  1. On the basis of the above, the applicant does satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl 189.215.
  2. As the applicant has not, at the time of this decision, been granted a subclass 189 visa, the Tribunal is unable to make a direction that the second, third, fourth and fifth named applicants meet the secondary criteria for the visa. However, the Tribunal notes that, having regard to the evidence provided by the applicant, which it considers to be reliable, it is satisfied that Ms Karume (the second-named applicant) is the ‘spouse’, as it’s defined in s 5F of the Act, of the applicant. The Tribunal has considered the circumstances of their relationship, including evidence of the financial and social aspects and the nature of the parties’ household as well as their commitment to each other: r 1.15A(3). On the basis of the written and oral evidence before it, which is accepted, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant and Ms Karume were married in Kenya in 2009; that they have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others; that their relationship is genuine and continuing; and that they do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Karume is a member of the family unit of the applicant.
  3. In addition, on the basis of the written evidence as well as the oral evidence of the applicant before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the third, fourth and fifth named applicants have always been, and continue to be, dependent on the applicant, within the meaning of r 1.05A(1).

DECISION

  1. The Tribunal remits the applications for Skilled Independent (Permanent) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for Subclass 189 - Skilled - Independent visas:



Nicola Findson
Member

ATTACHMENT

Migration Regulations 1994
Schedule 4

  1. (1) There is no evidence before the Minister that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal during the review of a Part 5 reviewable decision, a relevant assessing authority or a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to:
    (a) the application for the visa; or

    (b) a visa that the applicant held in the period of 12 months before the application was made.

(2) The Minister is satisfied that during the period:

(a) starting 3 years before the application was made; and

(b) ending when the Minister makes a decision to grant or refuse to grant the visa;

the applicant and each member of the family unit of the applicant has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in subclause (1).

(2AA) However, subclause (2) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.

(2A) The applicant satisfies the Minister as to the applicant’s identity.

(2B) The Minister is satisfied that during the period:

(a) starting 10 years before the application was made; and

(b) ending when the Minister makes a decision to grant or refuse to grant the visa;

neither the applicant, nor any member of the family unit of the applicant, has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in subclause (2A).

(2BA) However, subclause (2B) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.

(3) To avoid doubt, subclauses (1) and (2) apply whether or not the Minister became aware of the bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular because of information given by the applicant.

(4) The Minister may waive the requirements of any or all of paragraphs (1)(a) or (b) and subclause (2) if satisfied that:

(a) compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia; or

(b) compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen;

justify the granting of the visa.

(5) In this clause:

information that is false or misleading in a material particular means information that is:

(a) false or misleading at the time it is given; and

(b) relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider when making a decision on an application, whether or not the decision is made because of that information.

...

Migration Act 1958
s 5 Interpretation

(1) In this Act, unless contrary intention appears:

...

bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

(a) purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or

(b) is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or

(c) was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.

...

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2023/2619.html